Post-COVID-19 syndrome and diabetes mellitus: a propensity-matched analysis of the International HOPE-II COVID-19 Registry.

Background: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is one of the most frequent comorbidities in patients suffering from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) with a higher rate of severe course of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). However, data about post-COVID-19 syndrome (PCS) in patients with DM are limited. Methods: This multicenter, propensity score-matched study compared long-term follow-up data about cardiovascular, neuropsychiatric, respiratory, gastrointestinal, and other symptoms in 8,719 patients with DM to those without DM. The 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) according to age and sex resulted in 1,548 matched pairs. Results: Diabetics and nondiabetics had a mean age of 72.6 ± 12.7 years old. At follow-up, cardiovascular symptoms such as dyspnea and increased resting heart rate occurred less in patients with DM (13.2% vs. 16.4%; p = 0.01) than those without DM (2.8% vs. 5.6%; p = 0.05), respectively. The incidence of newly diagnosed arterial hypertension was slightly lower in DM patients as compared to non-DM patients (0.5% vs. 1.6%; p = 0.18). Abnormal spirometry was observed more in patients with DM than those without DM (18.8% vs. 13; p = 0.24). Paranoia was diagnosed more frequently in patients with DM than in non-DM patients at follow-up time (4% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.009). The incidence of newly diagnosed renal insufficiency was higher in patients suffering from DM as compared to patients without DM (4.8% vs. 2.6%; p = 0.09). The rate of readmission was comparable in patients with and without DM (19.7% vs. 18.3%; p = 0.61). The reinfection rate with COVID-19 was comparable in both groups (2.9% in diabetics vs. 2.3% in nondiabetics; p = 0.55). Long-term mortality was higher in DM patients than in non-DM patients (33.9% vs. 29.1%; p = 0.005). Conclusions: The mortality rate was higher in patients with DM type II as compared to those without DM. Readmission and reinfection rates with COVID-19 were comparable in both groups. The incidence of cardiovascular symptoms was higher in patients without DM.

Myocarditis Related to COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination.

The coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has been a cause of significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Among the short- and long-term consequences of COVID-19, myocarditis is a disease to be taken into consideration. Myocarditis, in general, is related to a poor prognosis. However, the epidemiology and prognosis of myocarditis related to COVID-19 are currently unknown. While vaccination against COVID-19 is of great benefit at a public health level, the risk of myocarditis should be considered in the context of the global benefits of vaccination. In this narrative review, we will summarize the etiopathogenic bases, the epidemiology, the clinical manifestations, the course, diagnosis, prognosis, and the treatment of myocarditis related to SARS-CoV-2, as well as myocarditis secondary to mRNA vaccines.

Aspirin Therapy on Prophylactic Anticoagulation for Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Analysis of the HOPE-COVID-19 Registry.

Background COVID-19 is an infectious illness, featured by an increased risk of thromboembolism. However, no standard antithrombotic therapy is currently recommended for patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The aim of this study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of additional therapy with aspirin over prophylactic anticoagulation (PAC) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and its impact on survival. Methods and Results A total of 8168 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were enrolled in a multicenter-international prospective registry (HOPE COVID-19). Clinical data and in-hospital complications, including mortality, were recorded. Study population included patients treated with PAC or with PAC and aspirin. A comparison of clinical outcomes between patients treated with PAC versus PAC and aspirin was performed using an adjusted analysis with propensity score matching. Of 7824 patients with complete data, 360 (4.6%) received PAC and aspirin and 2949 (37.6%) PAC. Propensity-score matching yielded 298 patients from each group. In the propensity score-matched population, cumulative incidence of in-hospital mortality was lower in patients treated with PAC and aspirin versus PAC (15% versus 21%, Log Rank P=0.01). At multivariable analysis in propensity matched population of patients with COVID-19, including age, sex, hypertension, diabetes, kidney failure, and invasive ventilation, aspirin treatment was associated with lower risk of in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; [95% CI 0.42-0.92], P=0.018). Conclusions Combination PAC and aspirin was associated with lower mortality risk among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in a propensity score matched population compared to PAC alone.

Chronic Oral Anticoagulation Therapy and Prognosis of Patients Admitted to Hospital for COVID-19: Insights from the HOPE COVID-19 Registry.

Background: Most evidence regarding anticoagulation and COVID-19 refers to the hospitalization setting, but the role of oral anticoagulation (OAC) before hospital admission has not been well explored. We compared clinical outcomes and short-term prognosis between patients with and without prior OAC therapy who were hospitalized for COVID-19. Methods: Analysis of the whole cohort of the HOPE COVID-19 Registry which included patients discharged (deceased or alive) after hospital admission for COVID-19 in 9 countries. All-cause mortality was the primary endpoint. Study outcomes were compared after adjusting variables using propensity score matching (PSM) analyses. Results: 7698 patients were suitable for the present analysis (675 (8.8%) on OAC at admission: 427 (5.6%) on VKAs and 248 (3.2%) on DOACs). After PSM, 1276 patients were analyzed (638 with OAC; 638 without OAC), without significant differences regarding the risk of thromboembolic events (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.59-2.08). The risk of clinically relevant bleeding (OR 3.04, 95% CI 1.92-4.83), as well as the risk of mortality (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01-1.47; log-rank p value = 0.041), was significantly increased in previous OAC users. Amongst patients on prior OAC only, there were no differences in the risk of clinically relevant bleeding, thromboembolic events, or mortality when comparing previous VKA or DOAC users, after PSM. Conclusion: Hospitalized COVID-19 patients on prior OAC therapy had a higher risk of mortality and worse clinical outcomes compared to patients without prior OAC therapy, even after adjusting for comorbidities using a PSM. There were no differences in clinical outcomes in patients previously taking VKAs or DOACs. This trial is registered with NCT04334291/EUPAS34399.

Prognosis of COVID-19 pneumonia can be early predicted combining Age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index, CRB score and baseline oxygen saturation.

In potentially severe diseases in general and COVID-19 in particular, it is vital to early identify those patients who are going to progress to severe disease. A recent living systematic review dedicated to predictive models in COVID-19, critically appraises 145 models, 8 of them focused on prediction of severe disease and 23 on mortality. Unfortunately, in all 145 models, they found a risk of bias significant enough to finally "not recommend any for clinical use". Authors suggest concentrating on avoiding biases in sampling and prioritising the study of already identified predictive factors, rather than the identification of new ones that are often dependent on the database. Our objective is to develop a model to predict which patients with COVID-19 pneumonia are at high risk of developing severe illness or dying, using basic and validated clinical tools. We studied a prospective cohort of consecutive patients admitted in a teaching hospital during the "first wave" of the COVID-19 pandemic. Follow-up to discharge from hospital. Multiple logistic regression selecting variables according to clinical and statistical criteria. 404 consecutive patients were evaluated, 392 (97%) completed follow-up. Mean age was 61 years; 59% were men. The median burden of comorbidity was 2 points in the Age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index, CRB was abnormal in 18% of patients and basal oxygen saturation on admission lower than 90% in 18%. A model composed of Age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index, CRB score and basal oxygen saturation can predict unfavorable evolution or death with an area under the ROC curve of 0.85 (95% CI 0.80-0.89), and 0.90 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.94), respectively. Prognosis of COVID-19 pneumonia can be predicted without laboratory tests using two classic clinical tools and a pocket pulse oximeter.

Sepsis of Patients Infected by SARS-CoV-2: Real-World Experience From the International HOPE-COVID-19-Registry and Validation of HOPE Sepsis Score.

Background: Patients with sepsis with a concomitant coronavirus (COVID-19) infection are related to a high morbidity and mortality rate. We investigated a large cohort of patients with sepsis with a concomitant COVID-19, and we developed a risk score for the estimation of sepsis risk in COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a sub-analysis from the international Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation Registry for COVID-19 (HOPE-COVID-19-Registry, NCT04334291). Out of 5,837 patients with COVID-19, 624 patients were diagnosed with sepsis according to the Sepsis-3 International Consensus. Results: In multivariable analysis, the following risk factors were identified as independent predictors for developing sepsis: current smoking, tachypnoea (>22 breath per minute), hemoptysis, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) <92%, blood pressure (BP) (systolic BP <90 mmHg and diastolic BP <60 mmHg), Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) <15, elevated procalcitonin (PCT), elevated troponin I (TnI), and elevated creatinine >1.5 mg/dl. By assigning odds ratio (OR) weighted points to these variables, the following three risk categories were defined to develop sepsis during admission: low-risk group (probability of sepsis 3.1-11.8%); intermediate-risk group (24.8-53.8%); and high-risk-group (58.3-100%). A score of 1 was assigned to current smoking, tachypnoea, decreased SpO2, decreased BP, decreased GCS, elevated PCT, TnI, and creatinine, whereas a score of 2 was assigned to hemoptysis. Conclusions: The HOPE Sepsis Score including nine parameters is useful in identifying high-risk COVID-19 patients to develop sepsis. Sepsis in COVID-19 is associated with a high mortality rate.

COVID-19 pandemic, mechanical reperfusion and 30-day mortality in ST elevation myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE: The initial data of the International Study on Acute Coronary Syndromes - ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction COVID-19 showed in Europe a remarkable reduction in primary percutaneous coronary intervention procedures and higher in-hospital mortality during the initial phase of the pandemic as compared with the prepandemic period. The aim of the current study was to provide the final results of the registry, subsequently extended outside Europe with a larger inclusion period (up to June 2020) and longer follow-up (up to 30 days). METHODS: This is a retrospective multicentre registry in 109 high-volume primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) centres from Europe, Latin America, South-East Asia and North Africa, enrolling 16 674 patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing PPPCI in March/June 2019 and 2020. The main study outcomes were the incidence of PPCI, delayed treatment (ischaemia time >12 hours and door-to-balloon >30 min), in-hospital and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: In 2020, during the pandemic, there was a significant reduction in PPCI as compared with 2019 (incidence rate ratio 0.843, 95% CI 0.825 to 0.861, p<0.0001). This reduction was significantly associated with age, being higher in older adults (>75 years) (p=0.015), and was not related to the peak of cases or deaths due to COVID-19. The heterogeneity among centres was high (p<0.001). Furthermore, the pandemic was associated with a significant increase in door-to-balloon time (40 (25-70) min vs 40 (25-64) min, p=0.01) and total ischaemia time (225 (135-410) min vs 196 (120-355) min, p<0.001), which may have contributed to the higher in-hospital (6.5% vs 5.3%, p<0.001) and 30-day (8% vs 6.5%, p=0.001) mortality observed during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Percutaneous revascularisation for STEMI was significantly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, with a 16% reduction in PPCI procedures, especially among older patients (about 20%), and longer delays to treatment, which may have contributed to the increased in-hospital and 30-day mortality during the pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04412655.

Antiplatelet therapy and outcome in COVID-19: the Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation Registry.

BACKGROUND: Standard therapy for COVID-19 is continuously evolving. Autopsy studies showed high prevalence of platelet-fibrin-rich microthrombi in several organs. The aim of the study was therefore to evaluate the safety and efficacy of antiplatelet therapy (APT) in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 and its impact on survival. METHODS: 7824 consecutive patients with COVID-19 were enrolled in a multicentre international prospective registry (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation-COVID-19 Registry). Clinical data and in-hospital complications were recorded. Data on APT, including aspirin and other antiplatelet drugs, were obtained for each patient. RESULTS: During hospitalisation, 730 (9%) patients received single APT (93%, n=680) or dual APT (7%, n=50). Patients treated with APT were older (74±12 years vs 63±17 years, p<0.01), more frequently male (68% vs 57%, p<0.01) and had higher prevalence of diabetes (39% vs 16%, p<0.01). Patients treated with APT showed no differences in terms of in-hospital mortality (18% vs 19%, p=0.64), need for invasive ventilation (8.7% vs 8.5%, p=0.88), embolic events (2.9% vs 2.5% p=0.34) and bleeding (2.1% vs 2.4%, p=0.43), but had shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (8±5 days vs 11±7 days, p=0.01); however, when comparing patients with APT versus no APT and no anticoagulation therapy, APT was associated with lower mortality rates (log-rank p<0.01, relative risk 0.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.94). On multivariable analysis, in-hospital APT was associated with lower mortality risk (relative risk 0.39, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.48, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: APT during hospitalisation for COVID-19 could be associated with lower mortality risk and shorter duration of mechanical ventilation, without increased risk of bleeding. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04334291.

Predictors of poor prognosis in healthy, young, individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infections.

OBJECTIVES: To identify predictors of poor prognosis in previously healthy young individuals admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: We studied a cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. All patients without co-morbidities, without usual treatments and ≤65 years old were selected from an international registry (HOPE-COVID-19, NCT04334291). We focused on baseline variables-symptoms and signs at admission-to analyse risk factors for poor prognosis. The primary end point was a composite of major adverse clinical events during hospitalization including mortality, mechanical ventilation, high-flow nasal oxygen therapy, prone, sepsis, systemic inflammatory response syndrome and embolic events. RESULTS: Overall, 773 healthy young patients were included. The primary composite end point was observed in 29% (225/773) and the overall mortality rate was 3.6% (28/773). In the combined event group, 75% (168/225) of patients were men and the mean age was 49 (±11) years, whereas in the non-combined event group, the prevalence of male gender was 43% (238/548) and the mean age was 42 (±13) years (p < 0.001 for both). On admission, respiratory insufficiency and cough were described in 51.4% (114/222) and 76% (170/223) of patients, respectively, in the combined event group, versus 7.9% (42/533) and 56% (302/543) of patients in the other group (p < 0.001 for both). The strongest independent predictor for the combined end point was desaturation (Spo2 <92%) (OR 5.40; 95% CI 3.34-8.75; p < 0.001), followed by tachypnoea (OR 3.17; 95% CI 1.93-5.21; p < 0.001), male gender (OR 3.01; 95% CI 1.96-4.61; p < 0.001) and pulmonary infiltrates on chest X-ray at admission (OR 2.21; 95% CI 1.18-4.16; p 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Major adverse clinical events were unexpectedly high considering the baseline characteristics of the cohort. Signs of respiratory compromise at admission and male gender, were predictive for poor prognosis among young healthy patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Gender Differences in the Presentation and Outcomes of Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

Gender-related differences in COVID-19 clinical presentation, disease progression, and mortality have not been adequately explored. We analyzed the clinical profile, presentation, treatments, and outcomes of patients according to gender in the HOPE-COVID-19 International Registry. Among 2,798 enrolled patients, 1,111 were women (39.7%). Male patients had a higher prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and more comorbidities at baseline. After propensity score matching, 876 men and 876 women were selected. Male patients more often reported fever, whereas female patients more often reported vomiting, diarrhea, and hyposmia/anosmia. Laboratory tests in men presented alterations consistent with a more severe COVID-19 infection (eg, significantly higher C-reactive protein, troponin, transaminases, lymphocytopenia, thrombocytopenia, and ferritin). Systemic inflammatory response syndrome, bilateral pneumonia, respiratory insufficiency, and renal failure were significantly more frequent in men. Men more often required pronation, corticosteroids, and tocilizumab administration. A significantly higher 30-day mortality was observed in men vs women (23.4% vs 19.2%; P = .039). Trial Numbers: NCT04334291/EUPAS34399.

Anticoagulation Therapy in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: Results From a Multicenter International Prospective Registry (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for Corona Virus Disease 2019 [HOPE-COVID19]).

OBJECTIVES: No standard therapy, including anticoagulation regimens, is currently recommended for coronavirus disease 2019. Aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of anticoagulation in coronavirus disease 2019 hospitalized patients and its impact on survival. DESIGN: Multicenter international prospective registry (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for Corona Virus Disease 2019). SETTING: Hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019. PATIENTS: Five thousand eight hundred thirty-eight consecutive coronavirus disease 2019 patients. INTERVENTIONS: Anticoagulation therapy, including prophylactic and therapeutic regimens, was obtained for each patient. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Five thousand four hundred eighty patients (94%) did not receive any anticoagulation before hospitalization. Two-thousand six-hundred one patients (44%) during hospitalization received anticoagulation therapy and it was not associated with better survival rate (81% vs 81%; p = 0.94) but with higher risk of bleeding (2.7% vs 1.8%; p = 0.03). Among patients admitted with respiratory failure (49%, n = 2,859, including 391 and 583 patients requiring invasive and noninvasive ventilation, respectively), anticoagulation started during hospitalization was associated with lower mortality rates (32% vs 42%; p < 0.01) and nonsignificant higher risk of bleeding (3.4% vs 2.7%; p = 0.3). Anticoagulation therapy was associated with lower mortality rates in patients treated with invasive ventilation (53% vs 64%; p = 0.05) without increased rates of bleeding (9% vs 8%; p = 0.88) but not in those with noninvasive ventilation (35% vs 38%; p = 0.40). At multivariate Cox' analysis mortality relative risk with anticoagulation was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.49-0.67) in patients admitted with respiratory failure, 0.50 (95% CI, 0.49-0.67) in those requiring invasive ventilation, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.51-1.01) in noninvasive ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulation therapy in general population with coronavirus disease 2019 was not associated with better survival rates but with higher bleeding risk. Better results were observed in patients admitted with respiratory failure and requiring invasive ventilation.

Non-invasive ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 acute respiratory failure: a subanalysis from the HOPE COVID-19 registry.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has seriously challenged worldwide healthcare systems and limited intensive care facilities, leading to physicians considering the use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) for managing SARS-CoV-2-related acute respiratory failure (ARF). METHODS: We conducted an interim analysis of the international, multicentre HOPE COVID-19 registry including patients admitted for a confirmed or highly suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection until 18 April 2020. Those treated with NIV were considered. The primary endpoint was a composite of death or need for intubation. The components of the composite endpoint were the secondary outcomes. Unadjusted and adjusted predictors of the primary endpoint within those initially treated with NIV were investigated. RESULTS: 1933 patients who were included in the registry during the study period had data on oxygen support type. Among them, 390 patients (20%) were treated with NIV. Compared with those receiving other non-invasive oxygen strategy, patients receiving NIV showed significantly worse clinical and laboratory signs of ARF at presentation. Of the 390 patients treated with NIV, 173 patients (44.4%) met the composite endpoint. In-hospital death was the main determinant (147, 37.7%), while 62 patients (15.9%) needed invasive ventilation. Those requiring invasive ventilation had the lowest survival rate (41.9%). After adjustment, age (adjusted OR (adj(OR)) for 5-year increase: 1.37, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.63, p<0.001), hypertension (adj(OR) 2.95, 95% CI 1.14 to 7.61, p=0.03), room air O2 saturation <92% at presentation (adj(OR) 3.05, 95% CI 1.28 to 7.28, p=0.01), lymphocytopenia (adj(OR) 3.55, 95% CI 1.16 to 10.85, p=0.03) and in-hospital use of antibiotic therapy (adj(OR) 4.91, 95% CI 1.69 to 14.26, p=0.003) were independently associated with the composite endpoint. CONCLUSION: NIV was used in a significant proportion of patients within our cohort, and more than half of these patients survived without the need for intubation. NIV may represent a viable strategy particularly in case of overcrowded and limited intensive care resources, but prompt identification of failure is mandatory to avoid harm. Further studies are required to better clarify our hypothesis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT04334291/EUPAS34399.

Does there exist an obesity paradox in COVID-19? Insights of the international HOPE-COVID-19-registry.

BACKGROUND: Obesity has been described as a protective factor in cardiovascular and other diseases being expressed as 'obesity paradox'. However, the impact of obesity on clinical outcomes including mortality in COVID-19 has been poorly systematically investigated until now. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes among COVID-19 patients divided into three groups according to the body mass index (BMI). METHODS: We retrospectively collected data up to May 31st, 2020. 3635 patients were divided into three groups of BMI (<25 kg/m2; n = 1110, 25-30 kg/m2; n = 1464, and >30 kg/m2; n = 1061). Demographic, in-hospital complications, and predictors for mortality, respiratory insufficiency, and sepsis were analyzed. RESULTS: The rate of respiratory insufficiency was more recorded in BMI 25-30 kg/m2 as compared to BMI < 25 kg/m2 (22.8% vs. 41.8%; p < 0.001), and in BMI > 30 kg/m2 than BMI < 25 kg/m2, respectively (22.8% vs. 35.4%; p < 0.001). Sepsis was more observed in BMI 25-30 kg/m2 and BMI > 30 kg/m2 as compared to BMI < 25 kg/m2, respectively (25.1% vs. 42.5%; p = 0.02) and (25.1% vs. 32.5%; p = 0.006). The mortality rate was higher in BMI 25-30 kg/m2 and BMI > 30 kg/m2 as compared to BMI < 25 kg/m2, respectively (27.2% vs. 39.2%; p = 0.31) (27.2% vs. 33.5%; p = 0.004). In the Cox multivariate analysis for mortality, BMI < 25 kg/m2 and BMI > 30 kg/m2 did not impact the mortality rate (HR 1.15, 95% CI: 0.889-1.508; p = 0.27) (HR 1.15, 95% CI: 0.893-1.479; p = 0.27). In multivariate logistic regression analyses for respiratory insufficiency and sepsis, BMI < 25 kg/m2 is determined as an independent predictor for reduction of respiratory insufficiency (OR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.538-1.004; p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: HOPE COVID-19-Registry revealed no evidence of obesity paradox in patients with COVID-19. However, Obesity was associated with a higher rate of respiratory insufficiency and sepsis but was not determined as an independent predictor for a high mortality.

Clinical profile and predictors of in-hospital mortality among older patients hospitalised for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is characterized by poor outcomes and mortality, particularly in older patients. METHODS: post hoc analysis of the international, multicentre, 'real-world' HOPE COVID-19 registry. All patients aged ≥65 years hospitalised for COVID-19 were selected. Epidemiological, clinical, analytical and outcome data were obtained. A comparative study between two age subgroups, 65-74 and ≥75 years, was performed. The primary endpoint was all cause in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: about, 1,520 patients aged ≥65 years (60.3% male, median age of 76 [IQR 71-83] years) were included. Comorbidities such as hypertension (69.2%), dyslipidaemia (48.6%), cardiovascular diseases (any chronic heart disease in 38.4% and cerebrovascular disease in 12.5%), and chronic lung disease (25.3%) were prevalent, and 49.6% were on ACEI/ARBs. Patients aged 75 years and older suffered more in-hospital complications (respiratory failure, heart failure, renal failure, sepsis) and a significantly higher mortality (18.4 vs. 48.2%, P < 0.001), but fewer admissions to intensive care units (11.2 vs. 4.8%). In the overall cohort, multivariable analysis demonstrated age ≥75 (OR 3.54), chronic kidney disease (OR 3.36), dementia (OR 8.06), peripheral oxygen saturation at admission <92% (OR 5.85), severe lymphopenia (<500/mm3) (OR 3.36) and qSOFA (Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score) >1 (OR 8.31) to be independent predictors of mortality. CONCLUSION: patients aged ≥65 years hospitalised for COVID-19 had high rates of in-hospital complications and mortality, especially among patients 75 years or older. Age ≥75 years, dementia, peripheral oxygen saturation <92%, severe lymphopenia and qSOFA scale >1 were independent predictors of mortality in this population.

COVID-19 anosmia and gustatory symptoms as a prognosis factor: a subanalysis of the HOPE COVID-19 (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for COVID-19) registry.

Olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions (OGD) are a frequent symptom of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It has been proposed that the neuroinvasive potential of the novel SARS-CoV-2 could be due to olfactory bulb invasion, conversely studies suggest it could be a good prognostic factor. The aim of the current study was to investigate the prognosis value of OGD in COVID-19. These symptoms were recorded on admission from a cohort study of 5868 patients with confirmed or highly suspected COVID-19 infection included in the multicenter international HOPE Registry (NCT04334291). There was statistical relation in multivariate analysis for OGD in gender, more frequent in female 12.41% vs 8.67% in male, related to age, more frequent under 65 years, presence of hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, smoke, renal insufficiency, lung, heart, cancer and neurological disease. We did not find statistical differences in pregnant (p = 0.505), patient suffering cognitive (p = 0.484), liver (p = 0.1) or immune disease (p = 0.32). There was inverse relation (protective) between OGD and prone positioning (0.005) and death (< 0.0001), but no with ICU (0.165) or mechanical ventilation (0.292). On univariable logistic regression, OGD was found to be inversely related to death in COVID-19 patients. The odds ratio was 0.26 (0.15-0.44) (p < 0.001) and Z was - 5.05. The presence of anosmia is fundamental in the diagnosis of SARS.CoV-2 infection, but also could be important in classifying patients and in therapeutic decisions. Even more knowing that it is an early symptom of the disease. Knowing that other situations as being Afro-American or Latino-American, hypertension, renal insufficiency, or increase of C-reactive protein (CRP) imply a worse prognosis we can make a clinical score to estimate the vital prognosis of the patient. The exact pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 that causes olfactory and gustative disorders remains unknown but seems related to the prognosis. This point is fundamental, insomuch as could be a plausible way to find a treatment.

Clinical presentation, therapeutic approach, and outcome of young patients admitted for COVID-19, with respect to the elderly counterpart.

There is limited information on the presenting characteristics, prognosis, and therapeutic approaches of young patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We sought to investigate the baseline characteristics, in-hospital treatment, and outcomes of a wide cohort < 65 years admitted for COVID-19. Using the international multicenter HOPE-COVID-19 registry, we evaluated the baseline characteristics, clinical presentation, therapeutic approach, and prognosis of patients < 65 years discharged (deceased or alive) after hospital admission for COVID-19, also compared with the elderly counterpart. Of the included 5746 patients, 2676 were < 65 and 3070 ≥ 65 years. All risk factors and several parameters suggestive of worse clinical presentation augmented through increasing age classes. In-hospital mortality rates were 6.8% and 32.1% in the younger and older cohort, respectively (p < 0.001). Among young patients, mortality, access to ICU and treatment with IMVwere positively correlated with age. Contrariwise, over 65 years of age this trend was broken so that only the association between age and mortality was persistent, while the rates of access to ICU and IMV started to decline. Younger patients also recognized specific predictors of case fatality, such as obesity and gender. Age negatively impacts on mortality, access to ICU and treatment with IMV in patients < 65 years. In elderly patients only case fatality rate keeps augmenting in a stepwise manner through increasing age categories, while therapeutic approaches become more conservative. Besides age, obesity, gender, history of cancer, and severe dyspnea, tachypnea, chest X-ray bilateral abnormalities, abnormal level of creatinine and leucocyte among admission parameters seem to play a central role in the outcome of patients younger than 65 years.

Underlying heart diseases and acute COVID-19 outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The presence of any underlying heart condition could influence outcomes during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: The registry HOPE-COVID-19 (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for COVID-19, NCT04334291) is an international ambispective study, enrolling COVID-19 patients discharged from hospital, dead or alive. RESULTS: HOPE enrolled 2798 patients from 35 centers in 7 countries. Median age was 67 years (IQR: 53.0-78.0), and most were male (59.5%). A relevant heart disease was present in 682 (24%) cases. These were older, more frequently male, with higher overall burden of cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, smoking habit, obesity) and other comorbidities such renal failure, lung, cerebrovascular disease and oncologic antecedents (p < 0.01, for all). The heart cohort received more corticoids (28.9% vs. 20.4%, p < 0.001), antibiotics, but less hydroxychloroquine, antivirals or tocilizumab. Considering the epidemiologic profile, a previous heart condition was independently related with shortterm mortality in the Cox multivariate analysis (1.62; 95% CI 1.29-2.03; p < 0.001). Moreover, heart patients needed more respiratory, circulatory support, and presented more in-hospital events, such heart failure, renal failure, respiratory insufficiency, sepsis, systemic infammatory response syndrome and clinically relevant bleedings (all, p < 0.001), and mortality (39.7% vs. 15.5%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: An underlying heart disease is an adverse prognostic factor for patients suffering COVID-19. Its presence could be related with different clinical drug management and would benefit from maintaining treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers during in-hospital stay.

Prognostic Impact of Hyponatremia and Hypernatremia in COVID-19 Pneumonia. A HOPE-COVID-19 (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for COVID-19) Registry Analysis.

Dysnatremia is associated with increased mortality in patients with community-acquired pneumonia. SARS-COV2 (Severe-acute-respiratory syndrome caused by Coronavirus-type 2) pneumonia can be fatal. The aim of this study was to ascertain whether admittance dysnatremia is associated with mortality, sepsis, or intensive therapy (IT) in patients hospitalized with SARS-COV2 pneumonia. This is a retrospective study of the HOPE-COVID-19 registry, with data collected from January 1th through April 31th, 2020. We selected all hospitalized adult patients with RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-COV2 pneumonia and a registered admission serum sodium level (SNa). Patients were classified as hyponatremic (SNa <135 mmol/L), eunatremic (SNa 135-145 mmol/L), or hypernatremic (SNa >145 mmol/L). Multivariable analyses were performed to elucidate independent relationships of admission hyponatremia and hypernatremia, with mortality, sepsis, or IT during hospitalization. Four thousand six hundred sixty-four patients were analyzed, median age 66 (52-77), 58% males. Death occurred in 988 (21.2%) patients, sepsis was diagnosed in 551 (12%) and IT in 838 (18.4%). Hyponatremia was present in 957/4,664 (20.5%) patients, and hypernatremia in 174/4,664 (3.7%). Both hyponatremia and hypernatremia were associated with mortality and sepsis. Only hyponatremia was associated with IT. In conclusion, hyponatremia and hypernatremia at admission are factors independently associated with mortality and sepsis in patients hospitalized with SARS-COV2 pneumonia. Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04334291, NCT04334291.

Prevalence and 30-Day Mortality in Hospitalized Patients With Covid-19 and Prior Lung Diseases.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with pre-existing respiratory diseases in the setting of COVID-19 may have a greater risk of severe complications and even death. METHODS: A retrospective, multicenter, cohort study with 5847 COVID-19 patients admitted to hospitals. Patients were separated in two groups, with/without previous lung disease. Evaluation of factors associated with survival and secondary composite end-point such as ICU admission and respiratory support, were explored. RESULTS: 1,271 patients (22%) had a previous lung disease, mostly COPD. All-cause mortality occurred in 376 patients with lung disease (29.5%) and in 819 patients without (17.9%) (p < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier curves showed that patients with lung diseases had a worse 30-day survival (HR = 1.78; 95%C.I. 1.58-2.01; p < 0.001) and COPD had almost 40% mortality. Multivariable Cox regression showed that prior lung disease remained a risk factor for mortality (HR, 1.21; 95%C.I. 1.02-1.44; p = 0.02). Variables independently associated with all-cause mortality risk in patients with lung diseases were oxygen saturation less than 92% on admission (HR, 4.35; 95% CI 3.08-6.15) and elevated D-dimer (HR, 1.84; 95% CI 1.27-2.67). Age younger than 60 years (HR 0.37; 95% CI 0.21-0.65) was associated with decreased risk of death. CONCLUSIONS: Previous lung disease is a risk factor for mortality in patients with COVID-19. Older age, male gender, home oxygen therapy, and respiratory failure on admission were associated with an increased mortality. Efforts must be done to identify respiratory patients to set measures to improve their clinical outcomes.

INTRODUCCIÓN: Los pacientes con enfermedades respiratorias preexistentes pueden tener en el contexto de la covid-19 un mayor riesgo de complicaciones graves e incluso de muerte. MÉTODOS: Estudio de cohortes multicéntrico y retrospectivo de 5.847 pacientes con covid-19 ingresados en hospitales. Los pacientes se separaron en 2 grupos, sin y con enfermedad pulmonar previa. Se evaluaron factores asociados con la supervivencia y criterios combinados de valoración secundarios, como el ingreso en la UCI y la necesidad de asistencia respiratoria. RESULTADOS: Mil doscientos setenta y un (1.271) pacientes (22%) tenían una enfermedad pulmonar previa, principalmente EPOC. La mortalidad por todas las causas ocurrió en 376 pacientes con enfermedad pulmonar (29,5%) y en 819 pacientes sin enfermedad pulmonar (17,9%; p < 0,001). Las curvas de Kaplan-Meier mostraron que los pacientes con enfermedades pulmonares tenían una peor supervivencia a los 30 días (HR: 1,78; IC del 95%: 1,58-2,01; p < 0,001) y la EPOC tenía una mortalidad de casi el 40%. La regresión de Cox multivariante mostró que la enfermedad pulmonar previa seguía siendo un factor de riesgo de mortalidad (HR: 1,21; IC del 95%: 1,02-1,44; p = 0,02). Las variables asociadas de forma independiente con el riesgo de muerte por todas las causas en pacientes con enfermedades pulmonares fueron la saturación de oxígeno inferior al 92% al ingreso (HR: 4,35; IC del 95%: 3,08-6,15) y el dímero D elevado (HR: 1,84; IC del 95%: 1,27-2,67). La edad menor de 60 años (HR: 0,37; IC del 95%: 0,21-0,65) se asoció con una disminución del riesgo de muerte. CONCLUSIONES: La enfermedad pulmonar previa es un factor de riesgo de muerte en pacientes con covid-19. La edad avanzada, el sexo masculino, la oxigenoterapia domiciliaria y la insuficiencia respiratoria al ingreso se asociaron con un aumento de la mortalidad. Se deben realizar esfuerzos para identificar a los pacientes respiratorios y establecer medidas para mejorar sus resultados clínicos.

Clinical profile and prognosis in patients on oral anticoagulation before admission for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) shows high morbidity and mortality, particularly in patients with concomitant cardiovascular diseases. Some of these patients are under oral anticoagulation (OAC) at admission, but to date, there are no data on the clinical profile, prognosis and risk factors of such patients during hospitalization for COVID-19. DESIGN: Subanalysis of the international 'real-world' HOPE COVID-19 registry. All patients with prior OAC at hospital admission for COVID-19 were suitable for the study. All-cause mortality was the primary endpoint. RESULTS: From 1002 patients included, 110 (60.9% male, median age of 81.5 [IQR 75-87] years, median Short-Form Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI] of 1 [IQR 1-3]) were on OAC at admission, mainly for atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism. After propensity score matching, 67.9% of these patients died during hospitalization, which translated into a significantly higher mortality risk compared to patients without prior OAC (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.08-2.16). After multivariate Cox regression analysis, respiratory insufficiency during hospitalization (HR 6.02, 95% CI 2.18-16.62), systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) during hospitalization (HR 2.29, 95% CI 1.34-3.91) and the Short-Form CCI (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03-1.49) were the main risk factors for mortality in patients on prior OAC. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to patients without prior OAC, COVID-19 patients on OAC therapy at hospital admission showed lower survival and higher mortality risk. In these patients on OAC therapy, the prevalence of several comorbidities is high. Respiratory insufficiency and SIRS during hospitalization, as well as higher comorbidity, pointed out those anticoagulated patients with increased mortality risk.